Talk:2013 Moore tornado

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why is this a separate article?[edit]

We already have a working article on the last 3 days of the outbreak, and while this appears to be the most violent of the storms and the most devastating, much of the details before and after (the weather system, the disaster handling) will be the same as in the main outbreak article. I strongly recommend merging all this into the outbreak article as a separate section and keeping this as a redirect. --MASEM (t) 23:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can't be serious? If jophin or moore 1999 deserves a article this does too. This is a big deal Matthurricane (talk) 23:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Matthurricane. After this major tornado, many people will be looking for information on this tornado specifically. Therefore a separate article is warranted. --Philpill691 (talk) 23:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing 1999 Bridge Creek – Moore tornado to 1999 Oklahoma tornado outbreak shows a lot of duplication between the articles save for the path and specific damage of the one tornado, and what other storms occurred in the latter article. I agree this storm overall needs an article and a specific section to highlight this specific tornado, but there's going to be tons of duplication if you keep them separate. --MASEM (t) 23:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The way I have seen this done is that a brief summary is kept on the outbreak page, while the article discusses the tornado in detail, information is still comming out and you are already talking about a redirect. Anyways, I Oppose the idea, this has the notability for a stand alone article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also have to Agree with Matthurricane in the need for a seperate article. The sheer severity, scale of destruction and casualties caused would warrant it, I think. This holds even more true if reports that this may be the most damaging single tornado turn out to be correct. So perhaps avoid merging for now whilst information is still being collected is a more prudent path to take and merging can be re-examined a little later? AJ Kirwin (talk) 23:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, right now at this point it doesn't make sense to force the question of a merge or the like, but I strongly suggest after a week or so to give time for more information to come in to reconsider this. I know in the past this has been done, but again, you're creating a lot of repeating between connected articles; while notability might be there for the specific storm, the coverage is better as part of the larger article since 75% or more of the details are the same. It's something to consider but after the major bulk of editing (and the immediate response after this storm) have died down. --MASEM (t) 23:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone ahead and removed more detail from the outbreak article, so it is down to a two sentence brief summary. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This particular tornado has claimed 30+ lives. I think it would be a hard case to make that this vast natural tragedy doesn't meet the standards for GNG and EVENT. This is far more now than mere weather news reporting. BusterD (talk) 23:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The point I'm trying to make is that information on how this storm formed (the weather patterns over the last few days), and the subsequent relief, cleanup, and aftermath is going to be 99% the same as the overall series of tornadoes over the last several days. (This is true in the above 1999 torando example). The outbreak and the specific storm are tightly connected and a single article is better suited to covering both, at least at the present time. But again, not going to push for that now. --MASEM (t) 23:51, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's somewhat foolish at this point to compare this tornado with the 1999 Moore tornado or the 2011 Joplin tornado. The 1999 Moore-Bridge Creek tornado was itself an exceptional weather event in that it had some of the highest wind speeds ever recorded. The 2011 Joplin tornado was exceptional in that it had a huge number of fatalities (158) compared to most tornadoes in modern history. Both of these tornadoes also were rated F5 or EF5. If THIS (the 2013 Moore tornado) meets the criteria for an independent article, then so should many, many other tornadoes, including the 1974 Xenia, Ohio tornado, the 1997 Jarrell, Texas tornado, the 2007 Greensburg, Kansas tornado, and this is by no means a comprehensive list. Given it is the rule, not the exception, to keep outbreak tornadoes within the outbreak page until their cultural importance is determined to be significant enough to warrant having their own page, I think the responsible and prudent decision would be to keep the two pages merged until such further point that it's determined an independent page is needed. DTXBrian (talk) 00:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I understand, there is no rule prohibiting anyone creating any of the articles you listed above. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 01:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rule, no - precedent, yes. Go look up most of the tornadoes in the 25 deadliest tornadoes in US history. There are more which are paragraphs within outbreak pages than there are individual pages. The ones that tend to have individual pages are those tornadoes which are "storied". The Tri-State Tornado, for example. And numerous 19th century tornadoes which were notable enough to develop their own lore. DTXBrian (talk) 01:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are reading a bit too much into the absence of those articles. Those articles will get written when someone gets around to it. The article on the 1999 Moore tornado was created only in February 2011, when someone got around to write it. There is nothing that prohibits those articles from being created, except editor interest; there has been, to my knowledge, no previous consensus that establishes a minimum level of notability for individual EF-5 tornado articles, which is what your are trying to imply. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 01:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you are going to fuss, maybe you should create some of those articles. If not, shut up. United States Man (talk) 01:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Try to maintain at least a modicum of civility, please. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 01:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although I think this proposal is rediculous, I do understand what he means. But Knowledgekid87 has fixed the problem. United States Man (talk) 23:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will still point out that everything in Impact and Reactions apply to the entire storm system over the last few days, even though Moore, OK will get the focus of that due to it being pretty much wiped off the map. The only thing still unique about this specific tornado is the description of its strength and path - all which can go into the main storm outbreak article without a problem and without duplication. The other "named tornado" articles that have been linked in the See Also are all redirects to the storm system, not the specific event. --MASEM (t) 03:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What happens in the case when the Tornado is more notable than the storm system? Examples: 1899 New Richmond tornado, 1999 Bridge Creek – Moore tornado, April 1998 Birmingham tornado, I still oppose the idea. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given that not every tornado outbreak is notable and such a system may produce once significantly notable storm, a separate article there is fine. But when there is a notable system to start, separating out a specific storm (even if that storm is notable) is not a good way to group information. In other words, I don't question this article's notability, but I do think that in terms of presenting a cohesive topic, the storm should be discussed at the same time as the system itself. --MASEM (t) 04:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Location[edit]

The intro needs to include the other cities that were hit in the path of this tornado, such as Newcastle, South Oklahoma City. I wasn't sure of the best way to word it. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 01:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The 20 miles (32 km) tornado tracked a path from west to east:[1][2][3]

  1. Unincorporated Grady County. (started at 2:56 pm CDT)
  2. City of Newcastle in McClain County.
  3. Southern Oklahoma City in Cleveland County.
  4. City of Moore in Cleveland County.
  5. Southern Oklahoma City in Cleveland County. (ended at 3:36 pm CDT)
  6. The tornado lifted before the west side of Lake Stanley Draper.

Sbmeirow • Talk • 04:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This map shows 3 tornadoes pathes through Moore, OK in last 15 years http://kfor.com/2013/05/20/interactive-map-1999-2003-2013-moore-tornadoes/ • Sbmeirow • Talk • 04:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Newcastle-Moore-South OKC Preliminary Tornado Track; NOAA - Norman, OK; May 20, 2013.
  2. ^ Path of the Tornado That Struck Near Oklahoma City; New York Times; May 20, 2013.
  3. ^ 2013 Oklahoma Metro Map; Oklahoma Department Of Transportation.

Drowning[edit]

Some of the news sources, are suggesting that the fatalities at the elementary school we're for the most part due to drowning, it looks as if there was a leak the either flooded a lower basement area where they took shelter and could not escape, or caught them under the rubble. Perhaps something, while horrific, worth mentioning, I have never heard of people drowning during a tornado, in fact the common belief is that the basement is the safest place in the twister. This adds a really sick and sad twist.[1] [2] --Kuzwa (talk) 01:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say that just yet. It could be that they were killed and then flooded by rainwater. If they did drown, the deaths would become indirect and the main death toll would go down. United States Man (talk) 01:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
However indirect it might be, wouldn't that still keep the death toll the same? To clarify my question, If a tornado caused water to flow into an underground area which caused people to drown, wouldn't that still be included in the main death toll as an indirect reason for death? --Super Goku V (talk) 02:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The way it would be (if we stay at 51 deaths and the did in fact drown) is the toll would look like: 44 (7 indirect). What I am trying to explain is that the water, not the tornado, killed the children. United States Man (talk) 02:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have to be careful as well to avoid WP:NPOV, if the sources are not calling the deaths indirect and we are then an issue could come up later down the road. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not saying that they did drown, but I was just telling what would happen in that case, which is routine for these kinds of articles. United States Man (talk) 02:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) Well the hurricane articles have it this way so I do not see any reason why not, although right now sources are saying 51 dead and do not mention them as being direct or indrect. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The drowning would not be an indirect fatality. It would still be the result of the tornado. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When deaths are the result of the direct application of the laws of nature by a tornado, shouldn't they be counted? Is getting hit by debris indirect? Debris that breaks guy wire(s) and causes a radio tower to fall on you? Outside of the tornado's actual path? I thought indirect was the result of free will (it being outside of physics now), that wouldn't have happened if the tornado/hurricane etc. wasn't there? Like avoidable side impact collisions caused by distraction during what would've otherwise been successful tornado outrunning? Or the 7000 deaths caused by people irrationally replacing flying with driving after 9/11 (far more than the attacks' official death toll)? What if the avoidable tornado-"caused" car accident just disables their cars preventing outrunning, and the tornado takes their lives? Direct or indirect? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ [1]
  2. ^ [2]

Death toll - 91[edit]

CNN anchor Piers Morgan spoke to a representative of the Oklahoma State Medical Examiner on-air tonight, who confirmed that an additional 40 bodies have been recovered and the confirmed death toll is now 91. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency[edit]

I think the introductory sentence here should modeled on that of the 2011 Joplin tornado article, which details a similarly catastrophic severe weather event. Is there a good reason why we are wording it differently here? King Bowser 64 (talk) 05:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Sigh, another MOS:BOLDTITLE discussion...) That assumes that the other article is worded correctly itself. In both cases, the bolded material is or would be redundant to the rest of the intro. Nor are these official/formal names of any sort; "2013 Moore tornado" is simply a Wikipedia-created description, not a name for the event. In the case of the Moore tornado, some media are calling it the "Moore/New Castle tornado" or similar, and the NWS seems to refer to the "Newcastle-Moore-South OKC tornado". (Maybe the article needs to be renamed and expanded? I'm not sure.)
In any case, compare to the Mississippi River Floods example from MOS:BOLDTITLE; with the Joplin tornado, it's worded like "The 2011 Joplin tornado was a ... tornado that struck Joplin ... May 22, 2011", very similarly to that specific example of an incorrect use of that format. We'd end up with similar here. The article title is in big giant letters up top, and probably in a title bar and/or tab. There's no need to reiterate it when it just repeats the same thing the rest of the intro sentence says, without doing anything but making it longer and less readable. (Edit: Fixed Joplin so it follows the MOS.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 06:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Redundant" or not, I found the 2011 Joplin tornado introductory sentence to be less clunky and more readable, before you altered it just now. But since I don't want to start an editing war, I guess I'll yield to your changes here. King Bowser 64 (talk) 06:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps swapping the date to the front made it less readable; that may not have been the best option for that article. I swapped it back so it's ordered the same as before, just minus the unnecessary "The 2011 Joplin tornado was", and actually does read better to me now. I suspect some of this may have to do with people being accustomed to reading bolded titles and thus our brains expecting to see one, even when the MOS suggests it not be done, since it is common (most articles do work fine with a bolded title, of course.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 06:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted it. 2001 has an idiosyncratic interpretation of the MOSBOLD policy, and has recently taken it up on him/herself to undo a number of long-standing leads with this new version. There's a debate on the Boston Marathon bombings article that I thought it started from, although I'm starting to realize it goes deeper. I undid it, and I would strongly advise 2001 to not undo it again without a strong consensus on the talk page, and that includes all the other articles that were edited sua sponte because of this conversation. Shadowjams (talk) 07:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not going to argue this further here (though I'd question whether this user should have performed multiple reverts, given that the two of us have an existing dispute over this policy); it's on my talk page now, where it belongs. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 14:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I thought our dispute was over a specific article and how it was uniquely exceptional to WP:MOSBOLD. I didn't realize you had a novel interpretation of what was, before now, a straighforward criteria. That said, I appreciate that you opened the discussion on the policy. I think that's a wise choice, and so I'll direct my further comments on this point there. Shadowjams (talk) 19:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meteological synopsis[edit]

For me, this section reads as somewhat overly technical. I think it needs some small edits to make it easier to understand. 141.6.11.20 (talk) 10:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shelter information[edit]

I guess this is available on one of the links in the article; I can't verify it myself. Source is an internet forum (Ravelry.com) so not worth putting the link here. But the info may be useful to someone.

These places have opened their doors to the public for those who need shelter.

University of Oklahoma (Norman) Opening up available student housing at no cost to storm victims. Call (405) 325-2511

Oklahoma Baptist University (Shawnee) Opening up available student housing at no cost to storm victims. Call (405) 275-2850 and (405) 878-2402

Journey Church (Norman I-35 & Tecumseh Rd.) Opening up housing and offering meals to storm victims. Call (405) 217-8700 or email help@journeychurch.tv

Red Cross Shelters are open at the following locations:

St. Andrews Church, 2727 SW 119th Street, Oklahoma City

Little Axe Resource Center, 1970 156th Ave. NE, Norman, OK 73026

Carney Oklahoma Senior Center, 301 E. Maple, Carney, OK 74832

Shawnee High School Athletic Center, 1001 N. Kennedy, Shawnee, OK 74801

Moore Community Center, 201 S Howard, Moore, OK

Newcastle Storm Shelter, 851 N Carr, Newscastle

Red Cross is also offering fixed feeding sites at the Little Axe Resource Center, the Carney Oklahoma Senior Center and in Shawnee at the Shawnee Expo Center located at 1700 W. Independence, Shawnee, OK 74804. Those who were impacted by this crisis are also urged to contact Red Cross at (405) 228-9500.

Google Crisis Center has also published a map with traffic, shelter, weather, and tornado related information. It’ll be a good resource for those in need of shelter or those who need information on where to go and what to expect.

http://google.org/crisismap/2013-oklahoma-tornado

Those who have internet access can register themselves as Safe and Well on the Red Cross Safe and Well list.

http://safeandwell.org/

Neel Veterinary Hospital is offering assistance to any animals that need emergency medical care 24/7. Call (405) 947-8387.

--Storye book (talk) 10:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have been given the following links for verification of the above: [3], [4], [5]. --Storye book (talk) 11:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Photos[edit]

Can someone add photos of the damage to this article? -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 13:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Flickr photostream here of which the photos are "some rights reserved" but includes share alike permissions. But they have changed the Flickr format and I no longer know how to transfer these free-use photos to Wiki. Help, please someone? --Storye book (talk) 13:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above Flickr user only has 2 useful photos, but there are many more if you do a search for "tornado oklahoma" on Flickr, and hopefully you will find more with similar free copyright. --Storye book (talk) 13:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per commons:COM:Licensing, Wikimedia Commons doesn't accept BY-NC-SA or anything else -NC. (And non-free content isn't allowed in this case, as long as there's freely licensed alternatives.) So that source, at least, can't be used. I notice that User:Ks0stm appears to close to Moore, and has uploaded the picture currently featured in the article's infobox and on the Main Page; perhaps he'll have more images for us in the future. (Talk about devotion to Wikipedia!) — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 13:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The photostream linked above, if all the images use that license, is not appropriate to use for WP - we can't restrict to non-commercial uses. (See this page on Commons for how to identify proper Flickr photos). We need photos in CC-BY or CC-BY-SA. You can always email the flickr photostream owner to get them to change the license.
Free photos (those that can go right to Commons) can be found with the new Advanced Search, and making sure that the CC option with both checkboxes checked are on. This [6] search gives you "Moore tornado" with Commons-friendly licensing and I see a few from the OK National Guard there already that could be added. --MASEM (t) 13:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. This one looks OK for Wiki and is without NC. However I still can't figure out how to transfer it to Wiki Commons. Right click and save as does not give a jpg file, and I cannot find the transfer system which used to exist on Flickr. --Storye book (talk) 13:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, found part of it at least. You click on the three dots beneath the image on its photopage, then choose view-all-sizes. On the view-all-sizes page you choose the original-size. Right click and choose save-image-as will allow you to download as jpg. However I still cannot find the old transfer system to Wiki Commons. --Storye book (talk) 13:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I should be able to get some photos of the aftermath but they are still not allowing people into the damaged areas due to the continued search for survivors and bodies. At the worst the NWS will upload damage survey photos that will be public domain. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 18:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this. I have now managed to transfer two photos from Flickr to Wiki, and contributed two to the article, but your photos will be much appreciated. --Storye book (talk) 07:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Videos[edit]

This is a video of the tornado touchdown, wondering if it should be added to the article. It was presented on reddit by solvitNOW. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMF22_MEMJU&sns=em. I have also confirmed that this is the location of the touchdown based on geographical landmarks and store signs. http://goo.gl/maps/aBwB9 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.55.226.3 (talk) 14:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The video would have to be released under a free license to be used. It would be nice to have as a demonstration of how massive the storm was but unless we can get it free, it wouldn't otherwise readily meet NFCC requirements. --MASEM (t) 14:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That video is incredible. Masem is right... it needs to be under a free license... but it might be worth asking the author to do so. Shadowjams (talk) 19:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is already included as an external link. Of course, if someone can get the author to provide permission, that would be even better. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 22:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a really good EL, and one of the small exceptions we make to youtube videos... it would be amazing if the badass that filmed that released it under a free license too, although I think he's done enough. Anyway, we all agree here, if anybody has any updates on contacting the video's maker, please post it here too. Thanks. Shadowjams (talk) 00:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

I know we all want to make sure that we're referencing the article well, but we need to be careful that we're not going overboard with the references. So far, I've removed a few duplicate and unnecessary references, and I've found some references after sentences that have nothing to do with what they were supposed to be referencing. So before throwing in a new reference, make sure that we don't have one somewhere in the article that you can use again. Inks.LWC (talk) 19:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've gotten the footnotes down from 39 to 32; from what I can see, there are no more duplicate footnotes. I've also cleaned up the article a bit, especially the lead, so that we don't have unnecessary references (especially mid-sentence references), and we don't have too many multiple references supporting the same sentence(s). Inks.LWC (talk) 19:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reaction[edit]

Should there be discussion in the article about comments from other governments and Pope Francis? [7] 331dot (talk) 20:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is usually added once surveys and deaths tolls have been finalized and everything has calmed down. United States Man (talk) 21:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NWS preliminary tornado damage survey map[edit]

KML file (edit • help)
Template:Attached KML/2013 Moore tornado
KML is not from Wikidata

The National Weather Service has released a preliminary tornado damage survey map with points and pics as .kmz file. The map includes the area of damage and for 240 points an evaluation of the damage. 128 of these points include an image. I have uploaded some of these images to commons:Category:2013 Moore tornado and extracted the .kml file. I would like to use the Template:Attached KML (see left) to link to this map. It misses however the icons and the thumbnails which where included in the .kmz archive. Google/Bing Maps needs a URL to the location where these images are stored. The thumbnails and icons are licensed under PD-USGov-NOAA respectively PD-shape, so I could upload them to commons. The problem is the exact location of images on commons is like upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/42/someimage.jpeg where 4/42 are arbitrary folders. I have no way to predict the exact file url on commons which makes it hard to search&replace these image location links.

Long story short could someone host the images contained in images.zip so that I can replace the invalid file urls in the .kml? The total size is 5.3 MB and they would only be accessed when someone clicks on the Google/Bing Maps link. Thanks Sitic (talk) 01:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't have to; Special:Filepath should point to the direct file, regardless of the file's upload subdirectory within MediaWiki. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 06:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Google/Bing Maps needs to access the files so I need the direct links to the image files. Special:Filepath is not an option unless I want to search&replace for each of the 135 files. Anyway, I have uplodad the files to some free-hosting service and adapted the .kml so it works for now. --Sitic (talk) 18:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

International Reactions[edit]

Coming from other news events articles (eg Sandy Hook), it is unusally not appropriate to detail international messages of condolences. If the countries were actually doing something, that would be different, but it is expected (to a point) that if there is a national disaster, friendly nations will send such messages as a matter of protocol and thus including them in any depth is UNDUE. --MASEM (t) 03:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This happens after every big event that the offices of presidents/ministers give a statement expressing condolences, but the text of every one of these is in no way notable or intrinsically relevant to the event. To list them is repetitive, unhelpful, and unnecessary. Reywas92Talk 03:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a note in the case of the Sandy Hook shooting there was at least one article that summarized these used as a reference, but if no such article materializes here, we can still link all appropriate statement at the end of a sentence like "Several countries offered their condolences for the loss in the storm." --MASEM (t) 03:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. What we have right now is excessive; it's too large of a section in proportion to the rest of the article. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You know, until you put it that way, I never thought of those reactions as routine events, but if they really are as commonly issued as you say then perhaps they really are kinda pointless to include. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 04:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem deleting the condolences stuff. Looking at Joplin tornado and Hurricane Sandy, neither mention anything about international condolences. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Donations section[edit]

I'm not sure I'm a fan of the bulleted list to break down the donations. Does anybody else have thoughts on this? Inks.LWC (talk) 03:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, not appropriate. A summary of the major charities, non-profits, and other entities is fine and perhaps any other resources they provided but a detailed list (particularly one that calls for people to donate) is not appropriate. --MASEM (t) 03:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've condensed it down. If anybody thinks it should be condensed further, feel free to do so. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The total reactions section is now bigger than the rest of the article, but nobody else seems to be wanting to discuss this on the talk page. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discusion about the exactness of locations[edit]

I'm concerned about the exactness of locations used within this article. If a person overlaps the damage maps over the top of city and county maps, then clearly multiple parts of this article are incorrect or overly using generic locations too freely. The "Meteorological synopsis" section and other parts of the article need to clarified! Note: Southern Oklahoma City wraps around the west / north / east sides of the city of Moore. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 05:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Use the following governement maps as reference:

From my investigation (as I stated in a previous section above), the tornado traveled from west to east across the following areas:

  1. Unincorporated in Grady County. (tornado started)
  2. City of Newcastle in McClain County.
  3. Southern Oklahoma City in Cleveland County.
  4. City of Moore in Cleveland County.
  5. Southern Oklahoma City in Cleveland County. (tornado ended)

---

As nice as your work here is, it would constitute original research under Wikipedia policies, and is thus not eligible to be used here. We have to stick with what the reliable sources have said, and they said it started "outside Newcastle" and then traveled through it, "South Oklahoma City," and Moore before dissipating. Once the final information comes out from the NWS, particularly in Storm Data, we can update it to be more precise. rdfox 76 (talk) 06:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If we use buildings / streets / rivers / highways in this article, then those things have KNOWN fixed locations which can be looked up on maps or GNIS, thus determining their correct city where they exist on a map. An incorrect article doesn't override an items official location on a map, nor does the verification task constitute original research! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 07:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For example, one of the example mistakes, "EF4 damage was north of Newcastle (near exit 108 on Interstate 44)", though using the OFFICIAL OKDOT map clearly shows "exit 108" is "IN" Newcastle not "NORTH" of it. The following NWS information clearly shows the EF4 damage west of exist 108, which backs up my previous statement. http://maps.google.com/maps?q=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fw%2Findex.php%3Ftitle%3DTemplate%3AAttached_KML%2F2013_Moore_tornado%26action%3Draw • Sbmeirow • Talk • 07:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, search the article for the words "Newcastle" and "Oklahoma City". Notice how Southern Oklahoma City is completely ignored in the Meteorological synopsis. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 07:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths at school[edit]

It would be good to find a source which actually mentions how many children and adults died at the school. I think it is seven of the nine child fatalities (one other child having died at the 7-11 freezer, and one other?) I have not seen any source about adult deaths at the school. Rmhermen (talk) 15:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Safe rooms[edit]

This article has the mayor declaring in favour of mandatory shelters or safe rooms equivalent in new builds. I do recommend some context. A surprising number of houses and other buildings in this area (Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma)have nothing of the sort, probably because it is not required by local, state, or federal law. By this I mean to say that it should not be implied that the local government is uniquely foolish in having not already had this regulation, which might be implied if the article says no more. The city merely followed the regional example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Gvros8 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 22 May 2013

In Wichita, Kansas, the school district is already far ahead on adding safe rooms. See Wichita school district a pioneer in FEMA-approved storm shelter safe rooms. Yes, I know this isn't about adding shelters in homes, but still it is a related topic since 2 schools were destroyed in Moore. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 03:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Basements scarce in tornado-prone Oklahoma City area; here's why • Sbmeirow • Talk • 08:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures from DOD[edit]

There are some informative pictures of damage and the response effort on the DOD website. Specifically, I was thinking this picture and this picture would be especially useful here. I suggest that someone with more experience with pictures add these images to this article and/or the commons. Thoughts? --Philpill691 (talk) 23:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first picture in particular looks extremely good. (For the article, not for the people in those homes...) Not that experienced with images myself, but someone really ought to add it! – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 00:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, since no one else was doing it I went ahead and added the first picture to the commons [8]. --Philpill691 (talk) 14:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
...And I added it to this Wikipedia page.--Philpill691 (talk) 14:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Simpler overview of Meteorological synopsis, details in broader article.[edit]

I'm a techie kind of guy, but the Meteorological synopsis is overwhelming, diving deep into technical language. I suggest starting with a sentence or two describing what was unusual and how it differed from other big storms, and leaving the details for the May 18–21, 2013 tornado outbreak article. ★NealMcB★ (talk) 15:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate 40 closure[edit]

In the impact section there is a statement that Interstate 40 was closed and a USA Today article is referenced. The USA Today article is incorrect. Interstate 40 was closed the previous day May 19 2013 from a different tornado. referencePd7342 (talk) 21:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed Michael73072 (talk) 20:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Briarwood Fatality?[edit]

There are tons of conflicting sources regarding whether a fatality occurred at Briarwood Elementary. The initial reports stated that all students were accounted for, but a later statement from police Sgt. Jeremy Lewis would indicate that one student fatality occurred there (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/21/18394047-search-and-rescue-winds-down-a-day-after-deadly-oklahoma-tornado?lite). There are multiple articles confirming a fatality there, but others claiming that nobody died at Briarwood. Any ideas on how to clear this up? Sharkguy05 (talk) 00:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)Sharkguy05[reply]

Linking any onlookers to the relevant discussion at User talk:United States Man#Moore. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How about more sources? You say there are "tons", but all you ever provide is the lone NBC source. United States Man (talk) 00:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I provided four on your talk page... ~Sharkguy05 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharkguy05 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a Google News search and came up with everybody confirming the "no fatalities at Briarwood" line, including the New York Daily News, The Moore American of Sunday, and CBS. My search produced not a single source besides that NBC article confirming the fatality at Briarwood Elementary. I'd go with The Moore American, by far the most recent source. Huon (talk) 01:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Including _ children[edit]

I don't think singling out children as their deaths being considered "more" tragic and being especially worthy of mention demonstrates a neutral point of view. It's tragic, but I don't see any reason to say "Including 10 children" and not men and women. This happened with the Boston Marathon Bombing article and it was removed from there so should it be removed here?

Also: I'm not saying we should omit statistics for the destroyed schools, of course. Thought I'd mention that. RocketLauncher2 (talk) 05:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With 10 childen out of 24 deaths there has been a significant high amount of fatalities among children compared to the total value. This is a relevant fact and should be noted. Lets say it would have been 10 teachers instead then i would have mentioned it there too. --Sitic (talk) 21:11, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It should be in the relevant parts of the article instead. Next to a mention of a school being destroyed, it should include the statistics there. It also sounds a little redundant, I think, when it says "24 deaths, including children" twice in the article. Maybe it should be put up to a vote here, it just doesn't sound notable enough when it's included in the phrase "24 deaths". I haven't seen other articles use "including 10 women" or "including 10 men" when that number was relatively high; it's usually children that get the special mention. That's what I'm wary of. RocketLauncher2 (talk) 00:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with RocketLauncher2. Even if they are children, they shouldn't get the special treatment. United States Man (talk) 00:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the general principle of noting any specific group that's significantly represented makes sense; children, teachers, residents of Antarctica, whatever. In this case, it's children. But I also agree that there shouldn't be special treatment in the lead and infobox. Should be noted in the body, but not as a prominent item unless the media is specifically reporting on the death of children being of significant notability past the overall deaths, and giving a specific rationale. In this case, children did die when schools were hit, but it's not like a tornado can specifically target children as a gunman might, thus not specifically notable. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 05:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it's worth mentioning with the destruction of the schools, but nothing beyond that. Even then, I'd prefer to refer to them as students rather than children. TornadoLGS (talk) 05:19, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in this case I'd agree specifically with that as the group in question: students killed at elementary schools, noted in the body of the article. Their ages aren't directly relevant, especially since the location gives the necessary context. It's not up to us to determine any sort of age cutoff for emotional purposes; I supported "children" in something like Boston Marathon bombings since they were specifically reported as such, but a more-generic (but no less informative) "students" seems to make more sense here. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 05:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, agree with the view that the children do not get any sort of special mention/focus, as that would violate NPOV. It is of course relevant that "students" in the school lost their lives in the natural disaster, but no extra emotion in the text, and no overemphasis. Simply state the number of students who died in the school, and/or after the tornado as a result of injuries suffered. End of story. Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not everything with a point of view violates NPOV. That said, I think the children designation shouldn't be in the infobox. It is fine to mention in the article text though because almost every major news organization makes that distinction. Shadowjams (talk) 02:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Documentary[edit]

A documentary aired on June 2nd on the Discovery Channel called Mile Wide Tornado: Oklahoma Disaster, which examines the Moore tornado ([9] [10] [11]). I'm not sure if this is notable enough to mention in the article. --Philpill691 (talk) 18:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, documentaries are not notable. TornadoLGS (talk) 05:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Problem related to strength[edit]

It is only two words, but on the link to the May 3, 1999 tornado in the See Also section, it says the tornadoes are similar in strength, when in fact, the May 3 tornado was much, much faster. The May 3, 1999 tornado had rotational wind speeds of greater than 300 miles per hour, whereas the May 20 tornado's rotational wind speeds were literally about 100 mph slower than the May 3 tornado, meaning that the May 20 tornado, while causing greater total damage than the May 3 tornado, was much weaker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dustin V. S. (talk • contribs) 04:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Similar in strength refers to the fact the the tornadoes received equivalent ratings. The ~300 mph wind measurement from the 1999 tornado was taken from amount more than 100 feet of the ground and does not necessarily reflect winds at or near ground level. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:52, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is still estimated that ground speeds were greater than 300 mph, putting it at at least 80 mph higher in wind speeds than the 2013 tornado. The speeds 100 feet up were 318 mph, and so the minimum ground speeds, I repeat, were still estimated to have been likely greater than 300 mph. To highlight the F5 - EF5 damage similarities, you might refer to the rating itself, rather than the strength. I notice that the article refers to the El Reno tornado in the See Also section as far stronger, when the 1999 tornado was likely even faster, not necessarily by a large amount, but by enough that the article's see also section should not make out that the El Reno had stronger wind speeds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.198.89.119 (talk) 02:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done United States Man (talk) 02:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring on lead[edit]

I can see we have differences of opinion as regards the first sentence of the lead ([12], [13], [14]). For my part, I'm confused as to the application of MOS:LEAD. Please point out chapter and verse; one version seems to better meet the first point of WP:BEGIN. Can we discuss this and develop consensus here instead of on live space? BusterD (talk) 03:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:BOLDTITLE would be the better section. I really don't care either way anyhow. Just trying to keep it within MoS since someone will likely gripe about it in the future. United States Man (talk) 03:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Put it this way...the only reason I prefer the version I put in is that I feel for event articles it just sounds better to start the article with the name of the event, which in this case is "the 2013 Moore tornado". To me, it just sounds like crap to dive straight in without saying what it is the article's about in the text. I also find that most, if not all, meteorology event titles are easily worked in without screwing around with the writing too much. Just my $0.02; it won't bother me terribly if we leave it the way USM set it since I won't see it all that often. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 04:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, okay with me either way. We'll let BusterD have some say in it. United States Man (talk) 04:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I like the way it is now, but I'm not very experienced in these things. Michael73072 (talk) 01:32, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

for a up to date map look here[edit]

A map showing ef0 ef1 ef2 ef3 ef4 ef4+ and ef5 damage and tree damage and the info on building that got hit damage code for google earth.

https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/gec-dynamic-data-layers/EATnpFmzhnE

Just posted this here so you guys can have a better map of the tornado.

File:May 20, 2013 Moore, Oklahoma tornado.JPG to appear as POTD[edit]

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:May 20, 2013 Moore, Oklahoma tornado.JPG will be appearing as picture of the day on May 20, 2015. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2015-05-20. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:06, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Moore tornado
The 2013 Moore tornado as it approached the city of Moore, Oklahoma, on May 20, 2013. This EF5 tornado, with peak winds estimated at 210 mph (340 km/h) and a maximum width of 1.3 miles (2.1 km), killed 25 people and injured 377 others. Damages from the storm were estimated at $2 billion.Photograph: Ks0stm
Archive – More featured pictures...

Maximum wind speed[edit]

The current sources either say the maximum winds were over 200 mph or estimated at 200-210 mph, but I have yet to find a definitive statement that they were actually estimated to be 210 mph, instead of just the range. Does anyone know of a source we can use to say it was definitively 210 mph? Otherwise, we should change it to say the maximum was 200-210 mph. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If there's no definitive statement, use the estimated range. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2013 Moore tornado. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:50, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2013 Moore tornado. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:57, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2013 Moore tornado. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 2013 Moore tornado. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:42, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2013 Moore tornado. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:40, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hindsight bias in this article?[edit]

Recently I came across the phenomenon of hindsight bias and I wondered whether this bias might also be present in this Wikipedia article... According to the hindsight bias, in retrospect it is overestimated how likely, predictable and/or inevitable an event was, and obviously a study has even found it in Wikipedia articles on accidents/catastrophes: doi:10.1007/s00426-017-0865-7 So I wondered whether that could be the case with this article, too – and whether the catastrophe is presented as more predictable and inevitable than it actually was before. Maybe we should search again for information that would have spoken against its occurrence? Apparently, the hindsight bias occurs because of a retrospective focus on information that spoke FOR the event while ignoring (or not taking seriously) information that would have argued for another outcome, which then, of course, leads to the impression of inevitability and foreseeability... This is why I wondered whether this article might also be affected by hindsight bias and should thus be checked again for this? --2A02:810D:1300:38E5:783B:9792:28B4:301C (talk) 20:22, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Questions over first indirect fatality[edit]

I've been in a discussion with a user (see User talk:SniperAsset#Unsourced changes for that conversation) over the listing of the death toll. The death toll was changed from 24 to 23 +1 indirect on May 29 with this edit but no additional source was provided at the time. I found this article indicating that the death toll was lowered, but not that the 24th death was indirect. The NCEI record lists no indirect deaths. The Medical Examiner, according to the conversation I had, lists 25 deaths including one victim who died from her injuries in August 2013. This gives a bit of a discrepancy in the death tolls. Does anybody have further details on that first indirect death? TornadoLGS (talk) 04:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2013_Moore_tornado&oldid=1196643156"